Re Post 214:
I don’t think any of this is the issue for the poster Limerick. I think he reads the number of posts and threads, by Catholics, decrying the non-Catholic world’s acceptance of the choice of abortion in principle (if not in fact for many non-Catholics). I think he wonders why Catholics should be surprised that the rest of the world does not agree with the RCC on all matters (in some cases, on any matters). I think he sees the obvious: that when you refuse to strive to find common language and points of essential agreement with others, but simply “require” agreement on one’s own religion’s terminology as a condition of communication, you will find yourself talking at those others instead of with them. (Yes, the thread was opened by a Catholic, inquiring from a Catholic viewpoint, but it also extended beyond that. And when you look at other threads, the vast majority of them concentrate on shock that nonbelievers will be nonbelievers, and What Should We Do About That?)
I also think he’s talking about moral and spiritual judgments about the state of others’ souls, when that is an area about which we (and even clergy) have limited knowledge – whether those souls are Catholic or non-Catholic. Even if you choose to ‘correct your brother,’ the vast majority of one’s energy (for any Christian for that matter) is to concentrate on one’s own sanctification – if for no other reason than the self is the only person over which we have control, not to mention ultimate responsibility. Both clergy and parents/teachers have responsibilities to guide, instruct, admonish, but ultimately they are not responsible for individual choices of others.
One’s first responsibility is absolutely to concentrate on one’s own holiness, and lack thereof. (However, reading many threads on CAF, one would never know that: one would think spotless angels who have completed that journey have been assigned to “straighten up” the sinners, which would apparently not be themselves.) Anyone who thinks they are, or almost are, at the destination, has frankly not begun to look deeply at his or her own flaws. Because it’s universal to have them, but fewer people than that are perceptive enough to see inside themselves. The road to holiness is a long one, and anyone fixated on where others are going has himself traveled off to tributaries instead of staying on The Main Road. Your first responsibility is to save your own soul. For most of us, that will not be finished until the Beatific Vision, which may or may not be preceded by purgatory.
If one feels it is one’s moral duty – from any platform (Catholic, Christian, agnostic human being) – to overturn Roe v. Wade, by all means do so. But it’s illogical to wring your hands that people choose to act within the civil law. It’s civil law – whether you consider it moral, religious, “natural,” correct or incorrect. That is why those of us with additional moral concerns spend energy trying to prevent certain widely accepted behaviors from becoming legalized (for example, gay “marriage”). We know that once they become institutionalized, they are difficult to reverse (unless by self-choice, by repudiation of one’s own alternative lifestyle).
I’m sure there are some more sober voices among Catholics, in the abortion debate, trying to find common moral ground with others and initiate restraints and reductions. Unfortunately, they get drowned out by those on the side of greater hysteria and less reason. And when that happens, public “debate” merely becomes a screaming match. I’m not suggesting that Catholics who feel passionate about the issue soften their principles – merely their approach and their language when speaking to others who do not share the same level of passion. It’s a matter of pragmatics more than anything else.
